The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bar under Section 53 and 61 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, prevents the entitlement to receive compensation under any other law for employment injury sustained by an insured person.

P.R. Bora, J.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. The question raised by the appellant in the present appeal is, "whether it was open for the Labour Court, which was also designated as the commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, to entertain an application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased claiming compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, when the deceased was an ‘insured person’ under the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948?"

3. The appellant has challenged the judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Application (WC) No. 38/2002 on 26th August, 2009. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed the aforesaid application before the Labour Court, Aurangabad, claiming compensation on account of death of their son by name Jagdish, during the course of his employment with the present appellant. In the aforesaid application, the present appellant had raised a specific objection that the application so filed under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, was not maintainable in view of the Bar provided under Section 53 of The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the ESI Act). It was the contention of the present appellant in his written statement that deceased Jagdish was covered under the provisions of the ESI Act and as such, the persons claiming to be his dependents were having remedy to approach the Employees' State Insurance authority and the remedy of filing the application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, was not available to them.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Labour Court has not even considered the objection so raised by the present appellant in his written statement, taking a specific plea that there was a Bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act and the application under the Workmen's Compensation was not maintainable.

5. I have perused the impugned judgment. The learned Labour Court though has recorded the objection raised by the present appellant, as about the maintainability of the application under the Workmen Compensation Act in view of the bar under Section 53 of the E.S.I. Act, has not dealt with the said issue and has not recorded any finding thereon.

6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Trehan v. Associated Electrical Agencies and Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 255, wherein it is held that in view of the clear language of Section 53 of the ESI Act, the insured or his dependents cannot claim any compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Counsel has relied upon one more subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Western India Plywood Ltd. v. A. Ashokan 1997 (7) SCC 638, wherein, relying on the judgment in the case of A. Trehan (cited supra) the Apex Court has reiterated the similar view.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the original claimants submitted that, having considered the fact that the claimant had not received any compensation on account of death of their son, who had died during the course of his employment, the learned Labour Court deemed it appropriate to entertain the application filed by the claimants under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, and as such, according to the learned Counsel no interference is required in the impugned Judgment and Award. The learned Counsel however did not dispute that, Section 53 of the ESI Act provides a bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the impugned Judgment and Award. As mentioned at the beginning of the Judgment, the only question raised in the present appeal is, "whether it was open for the labour Court, which was also designated as the commissioner for Workmen's Compensati